Commentary

As with so many other key words in health care today, there is no standard definition of what “value-based oncology care” entails; it is subject to different interpretations from payers, providers, and patients, according to Winston Wong, PharmD.
Sowmya Josyula, MD, MPH, and Bobby Daly, MD, MBA, discuss the most commonly recognized administrative barriers faced by physicians using oncology clinical pathways and argue that addressing these burdens is crucial in ensuring provider adoption and seamless patient care.
Many physicians still mistakenly believe that hospice and palliative medicine are one and the same, according to Timothy W Holder, MD, medical director, supportive care and survivorship, Cancer Treatment Centers of America.
Thomas Marsland, MD, medical oncology, St Joseph Health (Petaluma, CA), discusses the many considerations related to initial therapy, transplantation, maintenance, and salvage therapy for patients with multiple myeloma.
Will payers push for services to be provided on an outpatient basis, thus placing financial burden upon the patient, or will they allow the oncologist or facility to use their discretion as to where the infusion will take place?
Bruce A Feinberg, DO, and Chadi Nabhan, MD, MBA, FACP, contend that collaboration between payers and other stakeholders will help amend the concerns regarding newly approved CAR-T therapies.
Clinical pathways may require a deeper consideration of the patient experience in order to achieve the goals of the Triple Aim, according to Winston Wong, PharmD.
While CAR T-cell therapies fill an unmet need in hematologic malignancies, they are not without risk and cost burdens, according to Winston Wong, PharmD.
David Hughes, BSN, discusses how his institution uses a variety of criteria to target patients who might be eligible for clinical pathway inclusion.